{"id":196377,"date":"1989-05-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-05-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989"},"modified":"2017-12-06T12:13:14","modified_gmt":"2017-12-06T06:43:14","slug":"m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989","title":{"rendered":"M. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 May, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 May, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1713, \t\t 1989 SCR (3) 356<\/div>\n
Author: R Pathak<\/div>\n
Bench: Pathak, R.S. (Cj), Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J), Natrajan, S. (J), Venkatachalliah, M.N. (J), Rangnathan, S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM. JHANGIR BHATUSHA ETC. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT17\/05\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\nRANGNATHAN, S.\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nNATRAJAN, S. (J)\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR 1713\t\t  1989 SCR  (3) 356\n 1989 SCC  Supl.  (2) 201 JT 1989 (2)\t465\n 1989 SCALE  (1)1458\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1989 SC2054\t (19)\n RF\t    1991 SC1931\t (1)\n\n\nACT:\n    Customs Act 1962: Section 25(2)--Edible Oil--Import\t of-\nConcessional rate of customs duty in favour of State Trading\nCorporation-Private  importers complaining  of\tdifferential\ntreatment-Held necessary in public interest to make  special\norder of exemption.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The appellants\/writ petitioners are private importers of\nedible oils. Under the Import Policy of 1978-79, the Govern-\nment  canalised the import of edible oils through the  State\nTrading\t Corporation. Some of the private importers who\t had\nentered\t into firm commitments with foreign  suppliers,\t and\nwere now being denied permission to import the edible  oils,\nfiled  writ  petitions in various High Courts.\tThese\twrit\npetitions  were\t allowed and they were granted\tlicences  to\nimport\tthe  edible oils, in order to honour  their  commit-\nments.\n    From  March 17, 1979 the import of edible oils was\tsub-\njected to differential rates of customs duty at the hands of\nprivate\t importers and the State Trading Corporation,  inas-\nmuch as c-\noncessional  rate of customs duty was levied on the  imports\nby  the State Trading Corporation under the order of  exemp-\ntion  issued under section 25(2) of the Customs\t Act,  1962.\nThe  order stated that in view of high international  prices\nof  vegetable oils and in order to keep the domestic  prices\nat  reasonable levels it was considered necessary to  exempt\nthe State Trading Corporation from part of the Customs duty.\n    The appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court of\nDelhi  complaining  of the differential\t treatment  accorded\nbetween the private importers and the State Trading Corpora-\ntion.  Similar writ petitions were filed in this  Court\t di-\nrectly. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions.\n    Before  this  Court it was contended on  behalf  of\t the\nprivate\t importers that (i) there was no basis for the\tdif-\nferential  duty set out in the exemption orders and no\treal\nor substantial nexus between the\n357\ndifferentiation made and the object of s. 25(2); (ii)  there\nwas  no real or substantial distinction between the  private\nimporters and the State Trading Corporation having regard to\nthe  object of the statute, the nature of customs duty,\t the\nrationale of s. 25 and the professed object of the exemption\norders\tunder s. 25(2); (iii) the State Trading\t Corporation\ncould  not  be\tequated with the  Central  Government;\t(iv)\nassuming that the State Trading Corporation could be equated\nwith the Central Government or that it was acting on  behalf\nof the Central Government, once the Government ventured into\nthe commercial field it donned the robes of a trader, and it\ncould  not therefore claim any special attribute or  prefer-\nence for differentiation; (v) the differentiation  proceeded\non excessive classification, and that resulted in  violation\nof  the\t doctrine of equality enshrined in Art.\t 14  of\t the\nConstitution;  (vi) the concession must relate to the  goods\nand  not to the personality of the importer; and  (vii)\t the\nallegation that the international prices of edible oils were\nhigh was inconsistent with the reality of the situation.\n    Dismissing the appeals. special leave petitions and\t the\nwrit petitions, this Court.\n    HELD: (1) The power conferred on the Central  Government\nunder  s. 25(2) of the Act is to be exercised by it  in\t its\nsubjective  satisfaction. The exercise of the power is\tcon-\ntrolled\t by  the  requirement in the  sub-section  that\t the\nexemption order must contain a statement stating the circum-\nstances\t of  an exceptional nature under which\tthe  special\nexemption order has been considered necessary. The  require-\nment is intended by the statute to ensure that the satisfac-\ntion  of the Central Government concerning the necessity  of\nthe order is not reached arbitrarily but flows from material\nrelevant  to  the object for which the power has  been\tcon-\nferred. [361E-G]\n    (2) The limitations on the jurisdiction of the Court  in\ncases where the satisfaction has been entrusted to executive\nauthority to judge the necessity for passing orders is\twell\ndefined and has been long\naccepted. [365E-F]\n    (3)\t Contracts by private importers concluded  before  2\nDecember, 1978 were allowed to be worked out after that date\nwithout affecting the principle that as from December, 1978,\nthe business of importing such oils belonged exclusively  to\nthe  State  Trading Corporation. This is the  background  in\nwhich  the  questions  raised before the Court\tneed  to  be\nconsidered. [364E]\n358\n    (4) It is the Central Government which has to be  satis-\nfied,  as  the authority appointed by  Parliament  under  s.\n25(2),\tthat it is necessary in the public interest to\tmake\nthe  special order of exemption. It has set out the  reasons\nwhich  prompted\t it to pass the orders. It is not  for\tthis\nCourt  to sit in judgment on the sufficiency of\t those\trea-\nsons. [365D-E]\n    (5) The reasons set forth in the exemption notifications\ncan  constitute a reasonable basis for those  notifications.\nInternational prices were fluctuating, and although they may\nhave  shown  a perceptible fall there was  the\tapprehension\nthat  because  of the history of fluctuations  there  was  a\npossibility  of their rising in future. The need to  protect\nthe domestic market is always present, and therefore encour-\nagement had to be given to the imports effected by the State\nTrading\t Corporation  by reducing the rate of  customs\tduty\nlevied on them. [364F-G]\n    (6) It is true that the State dons the robes of a trader\nwhen  it enters the field of commercial activity, and  ordi-\nnarily it can claim no favoured treatment. But there may  be\nclear and good reason for making a departure. Viewed in\t the\nbackground  of\tthe reasons for granting a monopoly  to\t the\nState Trading Corporation, acting as an agent or nominee  of\nthe  Central Government in importing the specified oils,  it\nwill  be  evident  that policy\tconsiderations\trendered  it\nnecessary  to make consummation of that policy effective  by\nimposing a concessional levy on the imports. No such conces-\nsion is called for in the case of private importers who,  in\nany event, are merely working out contracts entered into  by\nthem with foreign sellers before 2 December, 1978. [365F-H]\n    S.T.C.v. Commercial Tax Officer, Vishakapatnam, [1964] 4\nSCR  99; Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of  Bihar,<\/a>\n[1969] 3 SCR 995; Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpo-\nration\tv.  Income Tax Officer, [1964] 7  SCR  17;  Vidarbha\nHousing\t Board v. Income Tax Officer City &  Refund  Circle,\nNagpur,\t 92 ITR 430; L. 1. C.v. Escorts Ltd., [1986]  1\t SCC\n264, 344; State of J & K v.T.N. Khosa, [1974] 1 SCR 771,792;\nMohammad Shujat Ali v. Union of India,<\/a> [1975] 1 SCR 449, 470\nand  In Re The Special Courts Bill, 1978, [1979] 2 SCR\t476,\n561-2, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  1924-27
\nof 1980 etc. etc.
\n    From  the  Judgment and Order dated\t 14.11.1979  of\t the
\nDelhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 1517 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
359<\/span><\/p>\n
    Soli J. Sorabjee, S.K. Mehta, H.N. Salve, A.N.  Banatwa-
\nla, Rajiv Datta, R. Ravindran, K.K. Patel, Ujwal Rana,\tM.K.
\nDua,  S.M. Sarin, Aman Vachher, E.M.S. Anam,  P.G.  Gokhale,
\nP.B.  Agarwala, R.B. Hathikhanawala, Ms. S. Manchanda,\tK.K.
\nMohan, P.K. Chakravarty, S. Srinivasan, K.C. Agarwal,  Madan
\nLokur,\tA. Minocha, R.B. Datar, K.M.K. Nair,  S.K.  Gambhir,
\nSanjay Sarin, Vivek Gambhir, M. Veerappa, Ms.  Kamini  Jais-
\nwal,  M.K.D.  Namboodiry, D.D. Gupta,  E.C.  Agrawala,\tV.K.
\nPandita, Ms. Purnima Bhatt, Atul sharma, V.N. Ganpule,\tC.K.
\nRatnaparkhi, M.M.L. Srivastava, M.C. Dhingra, V. Maya Krish-
\nnan,  D.N.  Misra, K.K. Gupta and Anis Ahmed Khan,  for\t the
\nAppellants.\n<\/p>\n
    K.\tParasaran,  Attorney General, B.  Datta,  Additional
\nSolicitor  General, and Kuldip Singh,  Additional  Solicitor
\nGeneral, K.N. Bhatt, C.V. Subba Rao, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mrs.
\nSushma Suri, A. Subba Rao, A.K. Srivastava, P.P. Singh, R.K.
\nJoshi and H.K. Gangwani for the Respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    PATHAK, CJ. These appeals by special leave are  directed
\nagainst\t the judgment and order of the High Court  of  Delhi
\ndismissing  writ  petitions  complaining  of  discriminatory
\ntreatment  between  the\t appellants and\t the  State  Trading
\nCorporation in regard to the rate of customs duty levied  on
\nthe  import of edible oils. A number of writ petitions\thave
\nalso  been  filed directly in this Court  by  other  private
\nimporters based on the same complaint. They pray for  relief
\nin  terms of the same rate of customs duty as has  been\t ap-
\nplied  to  the import of edible oils effected by  the  State
\nTrading Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
    As\tcommon questions of law arise in these\tappeals\t and
\nwrit  petitions and the facts are substantially similar,  we
\nproposed to treat Writ Petition No. 3800 of 1980, M\/s Liber-
\nty  Oil\t Mills v. Union of India & Others,<\/a>  as\tthe  leading
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
    On\t17  January, 1977 the Government of India  issued  a
\nPublic\tNotice permitting private parties to  import  edible
\noils for direct human consumption. It was not permissible to
\nuse  such imported oils for the manufacture of Vanaspati  or
\nfor  any  industrial  purpose. Under the  Import  Policy  of
\n1978-79, the Government canalised the import of edible\toils
\nso that the State Trading Corporation alone was permitted to
\nimport\tedible oils. Some of the private importers  who\t had
\nentered\t into firm commitments with foreign  suppliers,\t and
\nwere  now being denied permission to import the edible\toils
\nfiled writ petitions in vari-\n<\/p>\n
360<\/span><\/p>\n
ous  High Courts, and these writ petitions were allowed\t and
\nthey were granted licences to import the edible oils.
\n    Prior  to  1 March, 1979 the import of edible  oils\t was
\nexempt from customs duty, but with effect from that date the
\nexemption was partially withdrawn and certain specified oils
\nwere  made liable to import duty at 12 1\/2 per cent.  Exemp-
\ntion was granted from additional duty chargeable under s.  3
\nof  the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Auxiliary duty  chargeable
\nunder  the Finance Act was, however, payable. On  17  March,
\n1979  the Government passed an order of exemption in  favour
\nof  the\t State\tTrading Corporation under s.  25(2)  of\t the
\nCustoms Act, 1962 whereby the imports of the specified\toils
\nby the State Trading Corporation were made liable to customs
\nduty  at  5 per cent only, and there was a  total  exemption
\nfrom auxiliary and additional duty. The imports of the\tsame
\nspecified  oils\t by private importers were  made  liable  to
\ncustoms\t duty at 12.5 per cent ad valorem. The\tconcessional
\nrate of customs duty in favour of the State Trading Corpora-
\ntion  was  restricted to imports aggregating 3\tlakh  tonnes
\ninitially. That quantity was enlarged to 6 lakh tonnes on 26
\nJune,  1979. On 31 October, 1979, a further order of  exemp-
\ntion  was  made in favour of the State\tTrading\t Corporation
\ngranting it exemption for imports of five lakh tonnes of the
\nspecified  oils, and this was followed on 31 March, 1981  by
\nanother order of exemption in respect of an aggregate  quan-
\ntity of 5 lakh tonnes of oil. It may be mentioned that on 12
\nMay,  1981  the import of edible oil was exempted  from\t the
\nlevy of auxiliary duty.\n<\/p>\n
    On\t18 July, 1981, the Government reduced the  exemption
\ngranted\t to  the  import of the specified  oils\t by  private
\noperators  by raising the customs duty to 42 1\/2  per  cent.
\nThe  exemption\tin favour of the State\tTrading\t Corporation
\ncontinued  without change. Thereafter on 26 July,  1981,  by
\nOrdinance  No.\t9 of 1981 the Government raised\t the  tariff
\nrate of customs duty to 200 per cent ad valorem by  amending
\nthe Customs Tariff Act, 1975. At the same time exemption was
\ngranted\t insofar  that\tthe effective rate of  duty  on\t the
\nimport\tof the specified edible oils, except Rape  Seed\t oil
\nand  Soybean oil, was fixed at 125 per cent.  The  exemption
\nfrom  auxiliary duty was withdrawn. In the result a  private
\nimporter had to pay a basic duty of 125 per cent and  auxil-
\niary  duty of 25 per cent on the import of edible oils.\t The
\noil seeds imported by the State Trading Corporation  contin-
\nued to attract customs duty at 5 per cent.\n<\/p>\n
     Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court of Delhi by
\nprivate importers complaining of the differential  treatment
\naccorded between
\n361<\/span>
\nthe private importers and the State Trading Corporation, but
\nthese  writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court,\t and
\nthe appeals by special leave have now been placed before us.
\nAs has been mentioned earlier, writ petitions have also been
\nfiled directly.\n<\/p>\n
    At the outset learned counsel for the private  importers
\nstates\tthat no objection is being taken to canalisation  in
\nfavour\tof the State Trading Corporation. Nor is  there\t any
\nobjection  to  the permission granted to the  State  Trading
\nCorporation  to\t import 17 lakh tonnes of edible  oils.\t The
\ncomplaint  is  directed against the  differential  treatment
\nmeted  out to the private importers in the rate\t of  customs
\nduty.\n<\/p>\n
    The contention of the petitioners is that the  discrimi-
\nnatory\ttreatment has no real or substantial nexus with\t the
\nproposed  object of the exemption orders, having  regard  to
\nthe  terms of s. 25(2) under which the exemption  orders  in
\nfavour of the State Trading Corporation have been made\tand,
\ntherefore, there is a violation of Art. 14 of the  Constitu-
\ntion. S 25(2) provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(2)  If the Central Government  is  satisfied
\n\t      that it is necessary in the public interest so
\n\t      to do, it may, by special order in each  case,
\n\t      exempt from the payment of duty, under circum-
\n\t      stances of an exceptional nature to be  stated
\n\t      in  such\torder, any goods on  which  duty  is
\n\t      leviable.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    It\tis apparent that the power conferred on the  Central
\nGovernment  under s. 25(2) of the Act is to be exercised  by
\nit in its subjective satisfaction. It must be satisfied that
\nit  is\tnecessary in the public interest to pass  a  special
\nexemption order. The exercise of the power is controlled  by
\nthe requirement in the sub-section that the exemption  order
\nmust  contain  a statement stating the circumstances  of  an
\nexceptional  nature under which the special exemption  order
\nhas  been considered necessary. The requirement is  intended
\nby  the statute to ensure that the satisfaction of the\tCen-
\ntral Government concerning the necessity of the order is not
\nreached arbitrarily but flows from material relevant to\t the
\nobject\tfor which the power has been conferred. The  circum-
\nstances recited in the exemption orders are:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t …..\tIn view of high international prices
\n\t      of  vegetable  oils and in order to  keep\t the
\n\t      domestic\tprices\tof vanaspati  at  reasonable
\n\t      levels,  it has been felt that certain  speci-
\n\t      fied vegetable non-essential oils imported  by
\n\t      the S.T.C. would need to be exempted from part
\n\t      of the customs duty.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
362<\/span><\/p>\n
    The reasons set forth in this statement have been analy-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
sed  by\t learned counsel for the private  importers  and  an
\nattempt has been made to establish that there is no justifi-
\ncation for relying on the international prices of  vegetable
\noils  nor  the stated desirability of keeping  the  domestic
\nprices\tof  vanaspati at reasonable levels  as\tgrounds\t for
\nmaking the impugned exemption orders in favour of the  State
\nTrading\t Corporation. In detailed argument, learned  counsel
\nfor  the  private importers urges that the  public  interest
\nwhich  could  be  contemplated under s. 25(2)  must  be\t the
\nreduction of the landed cost in order to reduce the domestic
\nprices\tof the oils. That object, it is said, is not  served
\nby  conferring an advantage upon a particular importer\teven
\nif  it be the State Trading Corporation, who is\t engaged  in
\nthe same activity in respect of the same goods. It is point-
\ned out that the concession must relate to the goods and\t not
\nto  the personality of the importer. Further, it is  argued,
\nthe allegation that the international prices of edible\toils
\nwere high is inconsistent with the reality of the situation;
\non the contrary, it is pointed out, there had been a fall in
\nthe international prices of various oils. In support of\t the
\nlatter submission, reference has been made before us to\t the
\npleadings  of the parties and a P.A.C.\treport.\t Elaborating
\nhis submission in regard to the stated need for\t maintaining
\nthe  domestic  prices  of vanaspati  at\t reasonable  levels,
\nlearned\t counsel  for the private importers urges  that\t the
\noils  which  were being imported by private  importers\twere
\nintended  for  direct human consumption and could  not\thave
\nbeen  supplied to the vanaspati industry. Reference is\tmade
\nto  the\t affidavits  of the parties to show  that  the\toils
\nimported  by  the petitioners could not be utilised  in\t the
\nmanufacture of vanaspati as permission to do so had not been
\ngranted. Accordingly, the private importers say, there is no
\nbasis  for  the differential duty set out in  the  exemption
\norders and no real or substantial nexus between the  differ-
\nentiation made and the object of s. 25(2). Then, it is\talso
\nurged,\tthere is no real or substantial distinction  between
\nthe  private  importers and the\t State\tTrading\t Corporation
\nhaving\tregard to the object of the statute, the  nature  of
\ncustoms\t duty,\tthe  rationale of s. 25\t and  the  professed
\nobject\tof  the exemption orders under s. 25(2).  The  State
\nTrading Corporation, it is contended, cannot be equated with
\nthe  Central  Government, and we are  referred\tto  S.T.C.v.
\nCommercial  Tax Officer, Vishakapatnam, t19641 4 SCR 99.  It
\nis a private limited company registered under the  Companies
\nAct, 1956 and liable to be wound up under that Act, and that
\nalthough  it functions under the supervision of the  Govern-
\nment  of India and its Directors, it is not  concerned\twith
\nthe performance of any governmental functions, its functions
\nbeing  entirely\t commercial and in the nature of  a  trading
\nactivity.  Reliance  is\t also placed  on  Heavy\t Engineering
\nMazdoor Union
\n363<\/span>
\nv.  State of Bihar, [1969] 3 SCR 995; Andhra  Pradesh  State
\nRoad  Transport Corporation v. Income Tax Officer,<\/a> [1964]  7
\nSCR  17\t and Vidarbha Housing Board v. Income  Tax  Officer,
\nCity and Refund Circle, Nagpur & Others, 92 ITR 430.  Assum-
\ning,  the private importers contend that the  State  Trading
\nCorporation  can be equated with the Central  Government  or
\nthat it is acting on behalf of the Central Government,\tonce
\nthe  Government ventures into the commercial field  it\tdons
\nthe  robes of a trader, and it cannot thereafter  claim\t any
\nspecial\t attribute  or preference for  differentiation\tfrom
\nother  traders.\t Learned counsel has placed  before  us\t the
\nobservations of this Court in L.I.C. v. Escorts Ltd., [1986]
\n1 SCC 264,344. There is no rational basis, it is urged,\t for
\nmaking\ta distinction in the imposition of customs  duty  in
\nrespect\t of the goods imported by the private importers\t and
\nthe  State  Trading Corporation as both purchased  the\tsame
\ncommodity  in the open market for direct  consumption,\tthat
\nthe  sales effected by them are on a commercial\t basis,\t and
\nthere is nothing to show that the State Trading\t Corporation
\nsold these oils at a price lower than the market price or at
\nsubsidised  prices. It is asserted that the Central  Govern-
\nment,  like any other importer, is liable to  customs  duty,
\nand we are referred to s. 12 of the Customs Act. It is\talso
\ncomplained  that  the  differential  proceeds  on  excessive
\nclassification,\t and that results in violating the  doctrine
\nof equality enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution.  Reli-
\nance  is placed on State of J & K v. T.N. Khosa,,  [1974]  1
\nSCR 771, 792; Mohammad Shujat Ali v. Union of India,<\/a>  [1975]
\n1  SCR\t449, 470 and In Re The Special\tCourts\tBill,  1978,
\n[1979] 2 SCR 476, 561-2. And, finally, the private importers
\nclaim  that inasmuch as approximately 17 lakh tonnes of\t oil
\nwere imported by the State Trading Corporation as against  a
\nmere  1 lakh tonnes of oil imported by all the\tprivate\t im-
\nporters\t together,  and\t the exemption from  duty  has\tbeen
\ngranted in the public interest, namely, to control or reduce
\nthe price of edible oils, the relief which should be granted
\nis  to\tinclude the imports made by  the  private  importers
\nwithin\tthe  particular customs duty rate of five  per\tcent
\nalready\t extended to the oils imported by the State  Trading
\nCorporation.  In some cases, it is alleged that if  the\t im-
\nports effected by the private importers has to bear the duty
\nlevied\tupon them, the impact of the total duty would be  so
\nimpossible  that  it  would cripple the\t business  of  those
\nprivate importers.\n<\/p>\n
    In\treply, the learned Attorney General has\t laid  great
\nstress on the submission that the State Trading Corporation,
\nin  undertaking\t the  imports, acts solely as  an  agent  or
\nnominee\t of the Government of India and all the profits\t and
\nlosses are on account of the Government of India, the  State
\nTrading Corporation being entitled to service charges
\n364<\/span>
\nonly  at one per cent irrespective of loss or profit. It  is
\nsubmitted  that\t the  Central Government is  not  liable  to
\ncustoms\t duty and we are referred to various  considerations
\nin  support  of that claim. It seems to\t us  unnecessary  to
\nenter into that question because we have before us a  situa-
\ntion  where  customs  duty has in fact\tbeen  imposed,\teven
\nthough\tat the rate of five per cent only. In accepting\t the
\nimposition of customs duty, albeit at five per cent, neither
\nthe  State  Trading Corporation nor the\t Central  Government
\nrest  their  case on any claim to immunity  of\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  from the levy of customs duty. It is not  neces-
\nsary, therefore, to construe the amendment made in s. 12  of
\nthe  Customs Duty Act, 1962, to which both  learned  counsel
\nhave made reference.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t limited  question  before us is  whether  there  is
\njustification  for the differential treatment  accorded\t be-
\ntween the State Trading Corporation and the private  import-
\ners.  Now it is significant to note that the import  of\t the
\nspecified oils had been entrusted exclusively to the  State’
\nTrading\t Corporation with effect from 2 December, 1978,\t and
\nbecause\t the  private importers had already, prior  to\tthat
\ndate, entered into contracts for purchase of the edible oils
\nwith  foreign sellers, they were permitted to make  the\t im-
\nports  in question in order to honour their  commitment.  In
\nother words, contracts by private importers concluded before
\n2  December, 1978 were allowed to be worked out\t after\tthat
\ndate  without affecting the principle that as from 2  Decem-
\nber,  1978,  the business of importing\tsuch  oils  belonged
\nexclusively  to the State Trading Corporation. This  is\t the
\nbackground  in which the questions raised before us need  to
\nbe considered.\n<\/p>\n
    First,  as to the contention that both the\treasons\t set
\nforth: in the exemption notifications under s. 25(2) of\t the
\nAct  are  without foundation. It seems to us  that  the\t two
\nreasons set forth in the exemption notifications can consti-
\ntute  a\t reasonable basis for those notifications.  It\tdoes
\nappear from the material before us that international prices
\nwere fluctuating, the although they may have shown a percep-
\ntible  fall there was the apprehension that because  of\t the
\nhistory\t of  fluctuation there was a  possibility  of  their
\nrising\tin  the\t future. The need to  protect  the  domestic
\nmarket is always present, and therefore encouragement had to
\nbe given to the imports effected by the State Trading Corpo-
\nration by reducing the rate of customs duty levied on  them.
\nThis  involved a long term perspective, since the  exclusive
\nmonopoly  to import these edible oils was now  entrusted  to
\nthe State Trading Corporation. What appears to have dominat-
\ned  the\t policy of the Government in issuing  the  exemption
\nnotifications was the consideration that the domestic prices
\n365<\/span>
\nof  vanaspati should be maintained at reasonable levels.  It
\ncannot\tbe doubted that the entire edible oil market  is  an
\nintegrated  one,  and  that it is not  reasonable  to  treat
\nanyone\tof the edible oils or vanaspati in isolation. It  is
\nwell accepted fact that vanaspati manufacturers constitute a
\npowerful  organised sector in the edible oil market,  and  a
\nhigh vanaspati price would encourage an unauthorised  diver-
\nsion  of the edible oils to vanaspati  manufacturing  units,
\nresulting  in  a scarcity in the edible oil  market,  giving
\nrise to erratic prices and depriving consumers of access  to
\nedible oils. The need for preventing vanaspati prices ruling
\nhigh  was  also to prevent people normally  using  vanaspati
\nfrom switching over to other edible oils, thus leading to an
\nimbalance in the oil market. An overall view made it  neces-
\nsary to ensure that domestic prices of vanaspati remained at
\nreasonable  levels. To all these considerations the  learned
\nAttorney General has drawn our attention, and we cannot\t say
\nthat they are not reasonably related to the policy  underly-
\ning the exemption orders. So that the Government would\thave
\nsufficient  supplies of edible oil at hand in order to\tfeed
\nthe  market, the learned Attorney General says, it was\tcon-
\nsidered\t desirable and in the public interest to reduce\t the
\nrate of customs duty to five per cent on the imports made by
\nthe State Trading Corporation. Now it is the Central Govern-
\nment  which has to be satisfied, as the authority  appointed
\nby  Parliament under s. 25(2), that it is necessary  in\t the
\npublic interest to make the special orders of exemption.  It
\nhas  set out the reasons which prompted it to pass  the\t or-
\nders.  In our opinion, the circumstances mentioned in  those
\nnotifications cannot be said to be irrelevant or  unreasona-
\nble.  It  is not for this Court to sit in  judgment  on\t the
\nsufficiency of those reasons. The limitations on the  juris-
\ndiction\t of  the Court in cases where the  satisfaction\t has
\nbeen entrusted to executive authority to judge the necessity
\nfor passing orders is well defined and has been long accept-
\ned.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis  true that the State dons the robes of  a  trader
\nwhen  it enters the field of commercial activity, and  ordi-
\nnarily it can claim no favoured treatment. But there may  be
\nclear and good reason for making a departure. Viewed in\t the
\nbackground  of\tthe reasons for granting a monopoly  to\t the
\nState Trading Corporation, acting as an agent or nominee  of
\nthe  Central Government in importing the specified oils,  it
\nwill  be  evident  that policy\tconsiderations\trendered  it
\nnecessary  to make consummation of that policy effective  by
\nimposing a concessional levy on the imports. No such conces-
\nsion is called for in the case of the private importers who,
\nin any event, are merely working out contracts entered\tinto
\nby them with foreign sellers before 2 December, 1978.\n<\/p>\n
366<\/span><\/p>\n
    We\tare also not satisfied that any of the\tprivate\t im-
\nporters\t have made out that their business will be  crippled
\nor  ruined  in view of the rate of customs duty\t visited  on
\ntheir  imports. The material before us is not sufficient  to
\nwarrant any conclusion in their favour.\n<\/p>\n
    As, in our opinion, the private importers are not  enti-
\ntled  to relief, no question arises of\tconsidering  whether
\nthe exemption orders should be struck down or their  benefit
\nextended in favour of the private importers also.
\n    The appeals and Petitions for Special leave to appeal as
\nwell  as  the writ petitions before us\tare  dismissed,\t but
\nthere is no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.S.\t\t\t\tAppeals\t and  Petitions\t are\ndismissed.\n367<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 May, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1713, 1989 SCR (3) 356 Author: R Pathak Bench: Pathak, R.S. (Cj), Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J), Natrajan, S. (J), Venkatachalliah, M.N. (J), Rangnathan, S. PETITIONER: M. JHANGIR BHATUSHA ETC. ETC. Vs. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-196377","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-06T06:43:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 May, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-06T06:43:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989\"},\"wordCount\":3371,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989\",\"name\":\"M. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-06T06:43:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 May, 1989\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-06T06:43:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 May, 1989","datePublished":"1989-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-06T06:43:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989"},"wordCount":3371,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989","name":"M. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-06T06:43:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-jhangir-bhatusha-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-on-17-may-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 May, 1989"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196377","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=196377"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196377\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}